Truth is eternal. What was true, is true, and will always be true. Someone needs to tell the sinodalists and modernists. The did not get the memo. Deo Gratias.
Does that mean you are going to start standing on Sundays for every Mass? No more kneeling? The Canons (specifically Canon 20) of the First Holy and Ecumenical Council of Nicaea forbade kneeling on the Lord's day and teaches authoritatively that standing is the proper form for a Christian in worship on the Lord's day. An Ecumenical Council is WAY more authoritative and binding than this or that papal encyclical whose force does not extend beyond the particular canonical roman/latin church.
Unfortunately most Catholics are blind and don't even know what QUO PRIMUM is and not just lay people , Catholics are asleep at the wheel . Look at the world in general since the 60's everything is unraveling and I whole heartedly believe it's because there is not enough proper sacrifice around the world ( Latin mass )
@@ChristusImperat-vr2mn “Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos [Rule pertaining to faith and morals] of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi [“Rules”] of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all: “I believe in One God, Father Almighty, … and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord … who proceeds from the Father…” [the whole Creed is cited here] If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol [the Creed]…and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.” If The Pope can change a ruling of an Eccumenical Council, and indeed, accept an Ecumenical Council for 200 years only to reject it later, why can he not change the Liturgy? There is no infallible list or infallible documents.
Where does that leave The Novus Ordo of Pope Paul 6th, especially as Bugnini used deceit between The Pope and The College of Cardinals to push the new watered down Liturgy through and have it approved by The Pope? Should a challenge be made to have The Novus Ordo cancelled on these grounds and the TLM re-instated worldwide?
That’s a good question. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m just a layman with a wife, kids and a day job trying to do the right thing. All I know is that I won’t attend the new Mass under any circumstances. I drive 2 hours to attend a traditional Mass and I would go further if I had to. One day, our Lord and our Lady will straighten all this out. In the meantime, it’s for me to keep the faith. Ave Maria.
@ChristusImperat-vr2mn It's the same for me. I have to ignore most of what comes out of The Vatican these days as it conflicts with what The Church cathechised me growing up in the 1960's.
It's such a stupid paradox that the novelty-introducers would like to have ignored: By attacking the authoritative foundation of Quo Primum, they're attacking the authority which they bank on in enforcing the introduction of novelties.
The plain words do indicate it is binding, but the majority of today’s Bishops would laugh at this statement. Nothing is binding which predated Vatican Twoooooo.
The modernists pre-taught all Catholics the heresy that the dogma of Trent, an apostolic Rite with a capital R cannot be replaced by an all new Rite with a capital R is not really a dogma because liturgy is a matter of discipline, not a matter of faith and morals. But while many things in the liturgy my be just discipline. What is the same in all the rites of Mass can indeed be dogmatized, and further more, that an apostolic Rite with a capital R cannot be replaced by an all new Rite with a capital R, can indeed be dogmatized. That's not just a matter of discipline but a matter of faith also taught as a doctrine at the council of Constance in the from of a priestly oath. While Pope Pius V also stopped the creation of secondary rites with a small r like the Carmelite rite, the Dominican rite, and the Sarum rite. Preventing the creation of secondary rites cannot be dogmatized so future popes could allow rites with a small r to be created by overturning Pope St. Pius V on that ruling. I'm not the final authority but the 55, 58, and 62 missal as well as the High Mass at Our Lady of the Annunciation Abbey, the Clear Creek Monastery would all be secondary rites with a small r. I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here. But really the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Ambrose must all be secondary rites that replaced apostolic Rites with a capital R. Or maybe they are just embellished or truncated versions of the apostolic Rites with a capital R? It's interesting that Fr. Gregory Hesse said one of the Popes defined dogma that did not apply to the non-Roman Rites. Since one of the conditions of a dogma is that it is something that applies to the universal Church. So is that even possible. I think yes, because the Roman Rite is the universal Rite of the Church. So the Roman Rite with a capital R can be dogmatized in ways other Rites and rites cannot be dogmatized. While Rites that are not the Roman Rite can be abandoned under certain circumstances and conditions, one being the using the Roman Rite. The Universal Roman Rite with a capital R (TLM pre-55) can never be abandoned!
No. Quo Primum is neither authoritative nor binding. No Pope can bind his successors on matters of discipline and whatever argument Peter K and the gang want to make, the form of liturgical expression falls under the directive of each canonical church's visible head. For Rome, that is the Patriarch of the Latin Church aka the Pope. That's great that you like the Latin Mass. Most Catholics don't and appreciate the Novus Ordo for what it is.
Truth is eternal. What was true, is true, and will always be true.
Someone needs to tell the sinodalists and modernists. The did not get the memo.
Deo Gratias.
Does that mean you are going to start standing on Sundays for every Mass? No more kneeling? The Canons (specifically Canon 20) of the First Holy and Ecumenical Council of Nicaea forbade kneeling on the Lord's day and teaches authoritatively that standing is the proper form for a Christian in worship on the Lord's day. An Ecumenical Council is WAY more authoritative and binding than this or that papal encyclical whose force does not extend beyond the particular canonical roman/latin church.
Absolutely still binding " that's what forever means " PIUS V spoke infallibly from the chair of Peter '
I agree 100%. Ave Maria!
Unfortunately most Catholics are blind and don't even know what QUO PRIMUM is and not just lay people , Catholics are asleep at the wheel . Look at the world in general since the 60's everything is unraveling and I whole heartedly believe it's because there is not enough proper sacrifice around the world ( Latin mass )
Meaning?
@@gbnessdot96
The Tridentine Mass is not to be abrogated, suppressed or replaced by anyone. No matter their station.
@@ChristusImperat-vr2mn
“Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos [Rule pertaining to faith and morals] of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi [“Rules”] of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:
“I believe in One God, Father Almighty, … and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord … who proceeds from the Father…” [the whole Creed is cited here]
If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol [the Creed]…and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos [Rule] with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.”
If The Pope can change a ruling of an Eccumenical Council, and indeed, accept an Ecumenical Council for 200 years only to reject it later, why can he not change the Liturgy? There is no infallible list or infallible documents.
Yes.
Thank-you,
PAX
Where does that leave The Novus Ordo of Pope Paul 6th, especially as Bugnini used deceit between The Pope and The College of Cardinals to push the new watered down Liturgy through and have it approved by The Pope?
Should a challenge be made to have The Novus Ordo cancelled on these grounds and the TLM re-instated worldwide?
That’s a good question. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m just a layman with a wife, kids and a day job trying to do the right thing. All I know is that I won’t attend the new Mass under any circumstances. I drive 2 hours to attend a traditional Mass and I would go further if I had to. One day, our Lord and our Lady will straighten all this out. In the meantime, it’s for me to keep the faith. Ave Maria.
@ChristusImperat-vr2mn It's the same for me. I have to ignore most of what comes out of The Vatican these days as it conflicts with what The Church cathechised me growing up in the 1960's.
“Henceforth, now, forever and in perpetuity.” I dunno. Pretty ambiguous language. Whatever could it mean? 🤔
It's such a stupid paradox that the novelty-introducers would like to have ignored: By attacking the authoritative foundation of Quo Primum, they're attacking the authority which they bank on in enforcing the introduction of novelties.
Indeed! Ave Maria!
Amen,thank you God bless 🙏!
The plain words do indicate it is binding, but the majority of today’s Bishops would laugh at this statement. Nothing is binding which predated Vatican Twoooooo.
on 00:12 " publish by us" what the menaing word "us"?
The modernists pre-taught all Catholics the heresy that the dogma of Trent, an apostolic Rite with a capital R cannot be replaced by an all new Rite with a capital R is not really a dogma because liturgy is a matter of discipline, not a matter of faith and morals. But while many things in the liturgy my be just discipline. What is the same in all the rites of Mass can indeed be dogmatized, and further more, that an apostolic Rite with a capital R cannot be replaced by an all new Rite with a capital R, can indeed be dogmatized. That's not just a matter of discipline but a matter of faith also taught as a doctrine at the council of Constance in the from of a priestly oath.
While Pope Pius V also stopped the creation of secondary rites with a small r like the Carmelite rite, the Dominican rite, and the Sarum rite. Preventing the creation of secondary rites cannot be dogmatized so future popes could allow rites with a small r to be created by overturning Pope St. Pius V on that ruling. I'm not the final authority but the 55, 58, and 62 missal as well as the High Mass at Our Lady of the Annunciation Abbey, the Clear Creek Monastery would all be secondary rites with a small r.
I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here. But really the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Ambrose must all be secondary rites that replaced apostolic Rites with a capital R. Or maybe they are just embellished or truncated versions of the apostolic Rites with a capital R?
It's interesting that Fr. Gregory Hesse said one of the Popes defined dogma that did not apply to the non-Roman Rites. Since one of the conditions of a dogma is that it is something that applies to the universal Church. So is that even possible. I think yes, because the Roman Rite is the universal Rite of the Church. So the Roman Rite with a capital R can be dogmatized in ways other Rites and rites cannot be dogmatized.
While Rites that are not the Roman Rite can be abandoned under certain circumstances and conditions, one being the using the Roman Rite. The Universal Roman Rite with a capital R (TLM pre-55) can never be abandoned!
No hornets nest here. I think I followed what you’re saying. Thanks for your input. Ave Maria!
No. Quo Primum is neither authoritative nor binding. No Pope can bind his successors on matters of discipline and whatever argument Peter K and the gang want to make, the form of liturgical expression falls under the directive of each canonical church's visible head. For Rome, that is the Patriarch of the Latin Church aka the Pope. That's great that you like the Latin Mass. Most Catholics don't and appreciate the Novus Ordo for what it is.
It is not binding, because an equal cannot bind an equal. Except for dogmatic pronouncements, a pope cannot bind a future pope.